Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

We do have an amendment to the main motion.

I'll just repeat it for the sake of the committee.

It is to remove the part after the comma after “interference” that says “particularly in the 2021 federal election, through the use of funds from foreign-influenced organizations affiliated with the United Front of the Communist Party of China,”.

The motion should be amended by deleting the words: “, particularly in the 2021 federal election, through the use of funds from foreign-influenced organizations affiliated with the United Front of the Communist Party of China,”.

The motion, as amended, would read: “That the Committee undertake, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), a study of foreign interference and the threats to the integrity of democratic institutions, intellectual property and the Canadian state itself that arise from this foreign interference; and that the committee report to the House.”

Now, on the main motion, I have a list. I'm now on the amendments. I saw Mr. Green's hand up first, and he is followed by Mr. Bains and then Mr. Villemure.

Is it a point of order, Mr. Villemure?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

There's a problem with the translation here. The words “notamment” and “particularly” do not mean the same thing at all. The term “notamment” includes other countries as well as China, whereas “particularly” implies they are excluded.

The motion was originally written in French. There is a translation problem here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Can we correct the translation?

What do you recommend, Mr. Villemure?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I will use the French version and call upon the interpreters to help me, because “particularly” is not an exact translation of “notamment”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

“Particularly” is precise, whereas “notamment” is more vague, which takes into account Ms. Khalid's intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right.

When you moved the motion, you used “notamment”.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

If I had to translate the French motion right now, rather than saying “particularly in the 2021 federal election,” I would say “including in the federal elections”.

I would therefore say “including” rather than “particularly”.

I don't know how this error in translation was made, but the intent of the motion is the one that was written in French. We use “notamment” to say “including”, so as not to limit ourselves to what comes afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

All right. I understand.

Ms. Khalid, if your amendment is to be carried, then—and I'm asking because I'm looking for clarification on this—would it not have the same impact as what Mr. Villemure is proposing here? He talks about “particularly”, but it's also open to other organizations or other countries as well, perhaps. I'm looking for some clarification on that.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Absolutely, I'm happy to clarify.

The only country mentioned in the motion as it stands, the main motion, is China. I think that the fact that you're confused by the wording of the motion, Chair, speaks volumes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just so that we're clear, where I'm confused is, it does say “a study of foreign interference”, and then “particularly” in the—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

In my view, that really narrows the scope down to the 2021 federal election and the CCP. I did not interpret this to be broad ranging, and I don't think that Canadians, as they try to understand what the scope of the study is, would be particularly enlightened by this wording as it stands right now. I think that removing those two references would help us broaden the scope, step away from that narrow focus and have a more peripheral vision on what it is we want to study, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. I'm telling you that I see it the same as a study on foreign interference narrowed down down to the United Front of the Communist Party of China. In my view, if we are to delete that portion of it, I don't think we can end up broadly studying the issue of foreign interference. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's the problem as I see it.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

What I'm proposing through my amendment is that we study foreign interference and the threats to the integrity of democratic institutions, intellectual property and the Canadian state itself arising from this foreign interference.

To me, I think that is a sufficient scope that removes reference to any one specific instance. This gives us the ability to broaden what it is and what kinds of witnesses we bring in to testify before us. It gives us the ability to look at specifically what kind of evidence we want to dive into. It doesn't limit us to a specific election. It allows us to be nimble, to be versatile.

For example, if we have a witness here before the committee and something comes up, we won't have to put forward a new motion. We can really take ownership of what that foreign interference is and how we protect our democratic institutions and make sure that we are talking about how we protect the Canadian democratic values as opposed to saying, “Oh, look at this bad state actor” or “Look at that bad state actor”.

I think that through my amendment we'll be able to have that effect, as opposed to, if my amendment does not pass, looking specifically and only at the 2021 election and looking only at China. This is how I read it.

I understand and appreciate that this is a study that's already happening somewhere, right, and we're looking forward to seeing what the outcome of that study is going to be. What I'm trying to say here is that foreign interference is a really big issue. It matters, we need to look into it and we need to look into it with a bigger scope rather than narrowing it, to broaden the horizons of what it is that we're trying to achieve here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid. I think you've provided some clarity for the committee on what your intent is on the amendment.

On the amendment, I have Mr. Green.

Mr. Green, the floor is yours, sir.

After that, we're going to go to Mr. Bains on the amendment.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to go on the record to do something I don't normally do, which is to agree with my Liberal friends across the way. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in this kind of hyper focused avenue of China. I think it would be naive for us to think that they are the only ones. I don't think it would be productive to spend all of our time in this kind of hyper focused way when, quite frankly, it has been my experience and observation in southern Ontario that there are plenty of foreign actors on the ground, from nomination processes all the way through to election days.

I think that for the public interest of this committee we ought not to get bogged down in the language either. I think the point has been made. It's certainly not a revelation that China was implicated in alleged interference in the last two elections, so I could see that as the bulk of our focus, given the last two elections and given their proximity to our own personal elections. But beyond that, I think it's important that the committee take the opportunity to expand the study and include any and every particular investigation or information that we might have, because ultimately the cynicism in this country, Mr. Chair, is only served by us pulling back the veil and having a full and frank discussion about it so that Canadians, when they go to the polls, know that they have engaged in a free and fair election.

In speaking with my good friend from the Bloc, René, that's how I understood his motion and the spirit of his motion. That's why I supported it. That's why I supported continuing this discussion. As important as the work we do around access to information and everything else is—it's very important work—the allegations of having some kind of interference and tampering with our democratic processes are I think a grave concern for all of us, so I'm hoping that we can just move forward.

I'm in support of the amendment. I could care less whether it talks about the United Front of the Chinese Communist government. We know that's the impetus for the study, but when we start talking about it, I think we're going to find that this goes well beyond just China.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Green.

We have Mr. Bains next.

The floor is yours, Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll be quick. I'll echo the comments just made by Mr. Green and my colleague, Ms. Khalid.

I support this amendment as it allows us to take a broader focus. I think it's definitely an important matter. There are way more bad actors, if you may. I think that maybe we should even explore the interference that takes place domestically against our institutions and the way we conduct our democratic process.

I live in a large Chinese Canadian community. I'll just give a quick example. We went through a recent court case where a coffee was spilled on a Chinese Canadian and the community generally was in fear that nobody liked them anymore. I want to just state that I think that a key focus on the one community when we're definitely aware that there are many different actors out here, interfering in elections.... Like Mr. Green mentioned, it's everything from nominations to general elections.

I think if we were to adopt this study, we must do our job as legislators to take great care to not reinforce these stereotypes of one specific community.

I'll just leave it at that. As I mentioned, I support this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

Mr. Berthold, you may comment on the amendment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

First of all, I would like to say that it is important that we know what the vote is on before we vote, that is to say are we voting about the words “notamment“ and “particularly”. There is a very important nuance here.

Secondly, I want to correct something. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was seized with an emergency motion on the 2019 general election in the wake of revelations made by Global News on November 7th. We have been given permission to undertake a study on the election, that is to say the 2019 election, with four supplementary meetings.

At first blush, it seems to me that it would be absolutely relevant that your committee looks at the 2021 general election and what happened between the 2019 and 2021 elections, especially as the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is to scrutinize at the behaviour of elected and non‑elected government officials in light of the revelations made about 2019, i.e., alleged corruption and influence in the offices of MPs.

We have to ask ourselves a very important ethical question: what will we do if we learn that an MP's office was infiltrated by a foreign agent, such as one from Beijing's communist regime? Actually, we learned that in January last that MI5, which is the British equivalent of our Canadian Security Intelligence Service, had publicly identified an agent working for the communist regime of Beijing, and had informed the office where that person was working that the agent had provided financial support to candidates and MPs and that she had worked with them on certain files.

I just wanted to highlight that fact, given that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons. Our study is focused on the 2019 general election. I thought you should know, as you have warmly welcomed me here at your meeting today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

We are happy to have you here.

Mr. Bains, I saw your hand up, but I think you then took it down.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It was residual.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, sir.

We have an amendment on the floor. I don't see any further discussion.

I did not see any further discussion until the hand went up. We're good? Okay, there is no further discussion.

I'm going to call a vote on the amendment proposed by Ms. Khalid.

Is there consensus on the amendment, first of all?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid has requested a recorded vote, so we will proceed to a recorded vote.

Madam Clerk, if you would—

Mr. Kurek, we'll have to consider your vote an abstention.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Merci. The motion as amended carries.

Now the debate is on the main motion.

Ms. Hepfner, I had you on the main motion before. Please go ahead.